Exactly. I think I'll go sue anyone who wants to dip their cookies in milk. Milk and cookies was my invention!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Other Tech Companies Face Lawsuit Over Wireless Email Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. I think I'll go sue anyone who wants to dip their cookies in milk. Milk and cookies was my invention!
Which type of cookie? I have previous art on eating Oreos and using milk is obvious.
I read the patent as listed, I must be stupid because no one else mentions this: The patent seems to be primarily on the notification aspect of email architecture. The fact that the network sends a notification to the phone to get email and or sends the email to the mobile device. It specifically lists all of the normal exchange of email as "prior art".
Please explain my mistake.
When was IMAP patented?
As for who is a patent troll and who is not -- it is infrequent that when an attorney, et al get involved in a situation that actual work is performed. Work is what creates value and value is what deserves pay.
Really, can you have it both ways? A general patent for a specific process then find a judge who is easily convinced that anything generally close is using the patent? By definition, a patent must be very specific or it is not valid. Non-obvious and obvious after the fact are equally after the fact.
Patent submissions are purposely vague. This is the first thing that should be corrected.
Patents should be hard to get, patent lawsuits should be harder to win.
Probably (I can't speak for him, so I don't know for sure) referring to the process whereby somebody who doesn't take adequate steps to defend their trademark in one instance may end up gradually losing control of it entirely.
For example, "Escalator" was originally a registered trademark for one specific manufacturer's brand of moving stairwell. Now, the word "escalator" can be legally used to describe a moving stairwell from any manufacturer. Similar story for "Thermos".
"Kleenex" and "Google" are on slippery slopes in a similar direction - several dictionaries have already taken the step of genericizing those words' definitions.
The same process does NOT apply to patents. Personally, I'm not convinced that the same process ought to apply to patents.
So because they were no going after apple you rooted for them. Now they are going after apple you are against them. I bet if apple was not in this law suit you would be rooting for them.
As for the novel part when this patent was made wireless email was new and a novel. Patents have a life span of 17 years (or something like that) which means they may become a standard years later but during that time you get to collect money.
Under your logic USB should not be patented any more because it is a standard. Nor should h.264 because it is widely used standard and so on.
No, taking his statements at face value, FakeWozniak changed his mind regarding the NTP patents due to a poor understanding of what the NTP patents were originally claiming back when RIM was the target. Now that he has a better understanding of what NTP is claiming, he thinks that NTP should lose this new case. Tellingly, taking his statement at face value, he also says that he has now come to the conclusion that RIM shouldn't have lost the original case either.
It's been stated before, but it bears repeating and understanding. The rules for defending patents have changed. Formerly, if concept A had been a well-understood piece of prior art, and concept B was also a well-understood piece of prior art, but nobody had previously thought to put A and B together, then A+B would also have been patentable.
Today, the combination of A and B to produce A+B is not enough to defend a patent. (However, if combining A and B yields some by-product C, where C was not a predictable result of A+B, then C is patentable.)
I'll be quite interested in seeing how these new rules end up being interpreted in this case.
Ah. It's called genericide.
And, actually, if you don't defend your patents you could end up not being able to assert them due to a doctrine called "laches."
Still no one has address the issue of what NTP is specifically targeting. After reading the patent online, it seems that all the basics of email are listed as "prior art". I can not see the specific issues they are claiming. I do not believe they are claiming email in general or even email to a mobil device in general and I see nothing special happening in iOS regarding email except push which is license from Microsoft.
Can someone enlighten us specifically and stop acting like patent attorneys and making us guess?
My prior point is that patent submissions seem to be purposefully general to allow the attorney's lots of room to claim in trial. That should not be allowed. Either you have a good idea or you don't. Allow the idea to stand on it's own. Do not use the attorneys after the fact to trump up nonexistent ideas. As is usual -- ANY argument that starts of with a first line of <Blah Blah Blah> PERIOD. Is not as it seems at all.
Can someone enlighten us specifically and stop acting like patent attorneys and making us guess?
My prior point is that patent submissions seem to be purposefully general to allow the attorney's lots of room to claim in trial. That should not be allowed. Either you have a good idea or you don't. Allow the idea to stand on it's own. Do not use the attorneys after the fact to trump up nonexistent ideas. As is usual -- ANY argument that starts of with a first line of <Blah Blah Blah> PERIOD. Is not as it seems at all.
Lol freakin apple homers. Apple is a patent troll. Apple is suing HtC using BS patents.
Apple has a patent to unlock a touchscreen phone. Patents are supposed to be new and novel. Think about that one for a minute.
No they don't. They have a patent on unlocking a touchscreen phone using one of various specific techniques, each of which has many steps and requirements. Read the patent claims.